Archived: Ryefield Court

Updated 27 August 2021

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was conducted by two inspectors, a nurse and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Ryefield Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection

During the inspection

We spoke with six people who used the service and four relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with twelve members of staff including the registered manager, the deputy manager, senior care workers, care workers and domestic staff. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. These included nine people’s care records and various medicines records. We looked at four staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We had contact with one professional who regularly visited the service.

Updated 27 August 2021

About the service

Ryefield Court is a residential care home providing personal care to people aged 65 and over. The home can accommodate up to 60 people in one adapted building over three floors, each of which have separate adapted facilities. The second floor specialises in providing care to people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 48 people living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People received excellent person-centred care and were supported to have choice and control. Care plans were highly personalised and recorded people’s preferences in detail, so staff knew how to respond to people’s needs. Staff were innovative in how they met people’s needs and we saw examples of bespoke care. In addition to making sure people’s individual needs were being consistently met, the provider implemented programmes that benefited the whole service, such as the falls prevention strategy, which could then be tailored to each person’s individual needs.

There were various group activities on offer and people could choose to engage in activities that were meaningful to them. There were also activities tailored to people’s individual needs and preferences. People were supported to maintain links with family and friends and the provider was able to accommodate family and friends visiting in either communal areas or more private rooms. We observed staff were responsive to people's needs throughout the day.

There was a complaints procedure in place and the provider responded to complaints appropriately.

The provider had systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and staff knew how to respond to possible safeguarding concerns. There were also systems in place to identify and manage risks. Medicines were managed and administered safely.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The provider followed safe infection prevention and control procedures and provided staff with relevant training to help protect people from the risk of infection. Safe recruitment procedures were in place and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Supervisions, appraisals and competency testing provided staff with the support they required to undertake their jobs effectively and safely. People's needs were regularly assessed to ensure these could be met.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were involved in making decisions about their day to day care and their opinions were listened to and valued. Independence was promoted. People and their relatives confirmed people were cared for by competent staff who knew the needs of the people they cared for.

The provider had systems in place to monitor, manage and improve service delivery and to improve the care and support provided to people. People using the service and staff reported the registered manager was approachable and promoted an open work environment. Clear leadership contributed to people and staff being positive about the management of the home and feeling valued and respected.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 21 August 2020). The provider completed an action plan after that inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. In September 2020, we completed a targeted inspection and found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations. At this inspection we found that improvements had been embedded and the rating of the service has changed to good.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating and to check that the provider has been making consistent improvements at the service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information, we may inspect sooner.